CVN Gary Hart

[eddie]

In short, manpower.
A DDG can do what a CVN can insofar as sustained precision attack within certain geographic limits (but it is expanding).
5300 man ship vs. 200 man ship.
A CG magazine with 500 precision rounds translates to over 100 sorties of loaded out Rhinos.
Tanker hits every 7 days vs. independent ops.
VLS Tomahawk still there as more punch.
50+ CG/DDG vs. 4-5 deployed carriers.
It's a manpower beancounter's wet dream.

Mobile nature? look at the CVOA's in the NAG, everybody knows the limitations/parameters of the CVOA. Small boys have much greater geographic flexibility.
You said it, cost.

I'm not saying small-boys will ever supersede CVN's, at least not in the immediate future, but there is a RMA coming for SWO-daddies.

That's the kind of thing I was getting at, what I wanted to see.

Thanks.

 

[Hozer]

LCS program tanking for now....

That's the beauty of ERGM. ERGM capable 5" guns are already here in Mayport. Hell, put one on an FFG in the MK-13 hole and you've got a potent surface combatant from shit.

 

[MasterBates]

Is it me, or is there something inherently wrong with hard hats and dress uniforms?

 

[Hozer]

Is it me, or is there something inherently wrong with hard hats and dress uniforms?

True, MB.

As a side note, I'm a fan of bunting. I'm talking Great White Fleet stuff, some heinous gold colored shit draping over the bow, and bunting everywhere. I mean have it on all the time, North Sea in winter, address the bunting bos'n.

 

[statesman]

On the subject of Battleships and large surface combatants, I have heard rumors that the Marines would really like a battleship for support in Amphib ops.

Can and Marines validate this rumor?